[IBL] idea for a new protest process

[Todd Morgan]

That really might be your solution, folks... lower the power of the review
board to "look at a protest, decide if it's worth voting on".  If yes, then
the league votes.

Also require mandatory RB service for three teams every 8th year and rotate
thru the franchises, with some provision in place for switches if a
franchise's turn comes up when the owner is new.

Todd

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Noel Steere <noel.steere at rcn.com> wrote:

> Small quibble with point 2) (might be better to simply extend the "no
> trading" window for new owners that we already have to a year), but I
> completely co-sign Joel's list, as well as the supermajority needed for
> point 3)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 4, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Joel Roberts via Members <
> members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:
>
> I wonder whether if we were going to formalize criteria for protest we
> could have a catch-all "interest of the league" provision, with the caveat
> that that decision would have to be ratified by the rest of the owners. For
> instance, criteria for a protest to be upheld could be:
>
> 1. Obvious collusion by the owners in question.
> 2. A trade that is judged by the review board to be significantly
> unbalanced, where one of the parties is within (some period of time) of
> taking ownership.
> 3. A trade that is judged by the review board to not be in the interest of
> the IBL, in which this result is then ratified by (a majority of? Two
> thirds of?) the IBL owners.
>
> This last point would allow for unexpected situations while still
> demanding that a consensus be built.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "dmenard13 at comcast.net" <dmenard13 at comcast.net>
> *To:* George Blas <glblas7 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Joel Roberts <joelproberts at yahoo.com>; Noel Steere <
> noel.steere at rcn.com>; IBL Members <members at lists.ibl.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017, 7:02
> *Subject:* Re: [IBL] idea for a new protest process
>
>
> It is a fair point, I hadn't even thought of the wreckage scenario.  The
> definition would have to be strict to avoid it being a catch-all.  Clear
> lopsidedness or some evidence that the owner is leaving.  We could also add
> a provision for retroactive protests -- the fleecing owner would have to
> cough up a pick if the wrecked team's owner leaves.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"George Blas" <glblas7 at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Joel Roberts" <joelproberts at yahoo.com>
> *Cc: *dmenard13 at comcast.net, "Noel Steere" <noel.steere at rcn.com>, "IBL
> Members" <members at lists.ibl.org>
> *Sent: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 12:55:09 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [IBL] idea for a new protest process
>
> This is a fair point. Leaving wreckage is definitely not in the best
> interests of the league. Which is the goal here.
>
> To me it seems the idea of losing draft picks would also decrease the
> chances of people challenging a trade. Which I'm not sure is what we want
> to accomplish. Then there's the chance if owner(s) lose picks after a
> ruling there can be more bad feelings than even under the current system.
> Leading to less protests, etc.
>
> I know there's been a few trades in years past where owners have said "I
> should've protested that" but didn't. Perhaps because they didn't want to
> go through the process? Or upset others, or both. Trades are subjective in
> nature and everyone has their own opinions. Even a three person review
> board only factors 12.5% of owners.
>
> Not sure if anyone else plays fantasy sports in other leagues. I've
> commonly had league trades go to a vote and they don't go through if a
> certain percentage of owners vote no (1/3 or so). Vote usually anonymous.
> You have a few days to decide and you're done. Probably not
> needed/realistic for every trade here but perhaps an idea for any protested
> trades. Either to assist the review board or replace the review board.
>
> Maybe we enhance the review board with more members for more of a
> consensus. Every year we need more people to volunteer. Maybe we make it so
> it rotates like jury duty where you have to serve every few years. Anyway
> these are just some basic ideas.
>
> The system appears to mostly work but could perhaps just use some
> adjustments. Establishing a time limit/deadline should probably be another
> one (few days to a week?). A required league vote on protests could also
> gain consensus and help eliminate bias and apathy. Anyway again just some
> ideas.
>
> On May 3, 2017, at 11:44 PM, Joel Roberts via Members <
> members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:
>
> I mostly agree about the collusion/newbie boundaries. However, in the past
> we have had owners who have made a series of extremely lopsided
> future-for-now trades with the idea that they will win it all and to hell
> with down the road. Which is fine, *except* that they do this with the
> (clear?) intention that they will be resigning at the end of the year,
> leaving the wreckage of their team to the next owner. In fact, that's the
> situation I was in when I joined the league the first time. Allowing this
> to happen is not necessarily in the best interests of the league.
>
> While you can't read people's minds, I think that one of the other reasons
> for a protest mechanism is to protect against the most egregious instances
> of this.
>
> Granted, the trade that was overturned (and I have no opinion on that)
> appeared to be going in the direct opposite direction and so doesn't fit
> into this category either. Still, I'm just saying that there are reasons
> for the rule to exist aside from strict collusion/newbie.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "dmenard13 at comcast.net" <dmenard13 at comcast.net>
> *To:* Noel Steere <noel.steere at rcn.com>
> *Cc:* IBL Members <members at lists.ibl.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 3 May 2017, 23:28
> *Subject:* Re: [IBL] idea for a new protest process
>
>
> "My opinion about protests is that no trade should be protested unless
> there is obvious collusion." (Brent)
>
> This.  Maybe with a dash of new-owner protection.  Otherwise let the boys
> play.
>
> If I want to torpedo my organization by trading budding superstar Steven
> Souza, that's on me.  It's not even my worst trade since I returned, I
> think my trade for Hill was more lopsided.  One thing in common with these
> deals...
>
> I wanted the player.  I could accept 85 cents on the dollar returns to get
> them.  I'm happy that other owners know I don't have to nickel and dime
> them to get a deal done.
>
> Back on topic -- I'd support a plan which keeps the current process with
> strict limits to collusion/newbie protection.
>
> Dave
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Noel Steere" <noel.steere at rcn.com>
> *To: *"Sean Sweda" <sweda at ibl.org>
> *Cc: *"IBL Members" <members at lists.ibl.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, May 3, 2017 11:55:07 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [IBL] idea for a new protest process
>
> While that's a list of trades that made it to the Review Board, that does
> not include deals that were either held up by you before allowing them
> through the server, or where an owner was taken aside by people with
> authority in the league (yourself, Rusty) to have the deal altered, with
> the explicit consequences being that if not changed, the deal *would* be
> protested.
>
> So the threat of a protest is enough to force a deal to change, or at
> least require a vociferous defense to very specific people in the
> community.  This is not necessarily bad, just hidden from the text of our
> Constitution (and also any theoretical "court transcripts" about actual
> protests); it might be necessary in order to "keep the peace".
>
> I wasn't around ten years ago when the "bad blood" era seems to have
> occurred, so my perspective may be different from those of you who were
> here, but the secrecy I detailed above is what frustrates me about the
> current system.  I'm in favor of anything that opens discussion among all
> teams regarding potential unfairness in a deal *before* it goes to the
> Review Board.  I would love to have had a conversation about the
> Stephenson/Souza trade, because I find it fascinating, but apparently that
> conversation is not allowed, ostensibly because the decision has already
> been made, but there was no period of time for comments on it *before* the
> decision was handed down, either.  Ideally, a period for open comment
> should occur before a formal protest is placed, but there should at least
> be a posted thread for all of us to see before the ruling is made (with
> light moderation is fine, to keep the conversation civil).
>
> I like the idea of creating consensus before going to the Review Board
> (with the understanding that the Board is still the final arbiter; will
> those judgements still be respected if they go against consensus?), but in
> order to do that conversation is needed, and I don't see that happening
> without a known forum being available (not IRC; having a life where you're
> not always available to chat should not be a barrier for discussion), and
> for the forum to have far fewer restrictions on discussion than just
> happened.
>
> All this raises other questions:  Is there a deadline for protesting a
> trade?  Additionally, should any deadline be shorter during the FA Draft,
> to keep picks from getting held up?  Further, how would protests of trades
> made during the list phase of the draft, when the trades are only announced
> at the end of the entire draft?
>
> Noel
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 3, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
> >
> > It is true that the protest system is rarely invoked.  By a quick search
> of my mail I've found three instances in the last 4 seasons (2014-2017):
> >
> > Stephenson/Souza
> > a trade of 2 un-usable 6th round picks for an 8th (right before picks
> disappear in Feb)
> > a trade of a middle-reliever to move up in the draft from 1-6 to 1-4
> >
> > The protest system is virtually guaranteed to generate a bunch of
> ill-will, so what you would hope is that it would be invoked rarely AND
> only for deals of a certain magnitude.  I think a lot of people looked at
> these deals and decided they weren't important enough to protest regardless
> of the level of imbalance in value, and herein lies the problem.
> >
> > My proposal is designed specifically to encourage building a consensus
> that a trade is both imbalanced enough AND important enough for the League
> to have to suffer through the pain that will inevitably follow.  The
> exercise of building the consensus helps inform a single protestor as to
> whether their own standards need to be raised.  Furthermore, a consensus
> successfully being formed sends a strong signal to both the Review Board
> and the trade participants about the necessity of overturning the trade.
> Consensus is a win all around.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> >> On May 3, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Kevin Greenberg <greenbergk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> As a now-outsider I have been watching this and realized the system
> actually works pretty well.
> >>
> >> Except for one short burst of revenge protests about a decade ago that
> was quickly put down this only seems to flair up in some minor way once
> every few years.  Hard feelings will fade after a few weeks.
> >>
> >> I have seen many mostly ok systems blow up when people spend time
> fighting about the process.  I would urge you guys to table this for a
> month and if people feel strongly about it then, someone can start a
> thought process to develop a concrete proposal.   I suspect everyone will
> decide the problem isn't as big as it feels right now.
> >>
> >> And if you guys want me to shut up, consider it done.  I'm done talking
> on this having said my piece.
> >>
> >> Kevin
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM Larry Selleck via Members <
> members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Could someone please indicate how many protests there have been in the
> past season (checking how much of an issue this actually is)?  What is
> proposed below would pretty much stop all protests, except in the case of
> the most extreme cases (i.e. Kershaw for a #5).  If that is the goal, then
> wouldn't it be easier to simply outlaw protests?  The argument that most
> trades happen between experienced managers is a very popular one so why not
> just leave it to whomever can negotiate the better deal?
> >>>
> >>> The other consequence is that to gather enough teams to join in a
> protest would effectively require the protest to be a public forum, which
> would flood our emails with more petty personal attacks (there were no
> personal attacks in the instance of a recent protest, but it has happened
> in the past) by managers who feel slighted because someone had a different
> opinion ... and if that was the case, then why not put a protested trade up
> to league vote, requiring a minimum number of teams to participate to be a
> forum (half or 2/3) and then a % pass to uphold ... probably too time
> consuming, but an option.
> >>>
> >>> Larry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Russell Peltz via Members <members at lists.ibl.org>
> >>> To: Matt Sivertson <mattsivertson at gmail.com>; Sean Sweda <
> sweda at ibl.org>
> >>> Cc: IBL Members <members at lists.ibl.org>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 22:16
> >>> Subject: Re: [IBL] idea for a new protest process
> >>>
> >>> I would welcome any ideas to improving the review process, and I like
> Sean's ideas.
> >>>
> >>> We used to have terrible arguments all the time about teams tanking
> games for draft position, and we implemented a good system that solved the
> problem.  I think we could do the same thing with the trade protest system.
> >>>
> >>> Also, there isn't anything in the Constitution about what threshold of
> imbalance a deal needs to meet to be overturned.  We could add some
> guidelines.
> >>>
> >>> -Rusty
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017, 1:52:55 PM PDT, Matt Sivertson <
> mattsivertson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I think something like this would be useful as well, and I like the
> idea of the collateral going down when more owners are involved. One other
> thing I'd like to see is more formalized guidance to the review board about
> how to evaluate these trades and what should constitute a trade worthy of
> being overturned.  I might be mistaken but I don't think we have any formal
> criteria for that and it's pretty much just if the board wants to overturn
> it they do, and if they don't then they don't.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
> >>> Every time we have one of these I think to myself -- "we really need a
> better system".  I'm a firm believer that a league like this must have a
> mechanism to overturn significantly imbalanced trades, given that the
> consequences of these deals are magnified enormously due to perpetual
> ownership of players.  I understand that some will disagree, but let's
> table that for now and posit that if a protest mechanism is a necessary
> evil how could it work better?
> >>>
> >>> The primary area of concern I see is the means by which a protest is
> registered:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Any protest system relies on a filtering mechanism by which the
> owners of the league look at a deal and make a determination about the
> level of imbalance.  Additionally, some may decide that even though a trade
> is imbalanced that the parts that are moving are inconsequential enough
> that it does not merit a protest.  We only require one team to register a
> protest, which means whoever has the lowest threshold is making the
> determination.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Another problem is that there's no downside to being the protesting
> team, so long as you don't particularly care if you're irritating the two
> owners who made the deal.  The protesting team doesn't pay any price if
> their filter for imbalanced trades is lower than the consensus.
> >>>
> >>> 3) Finally, once one team triggers a protest the other teams that also
> believed the trade to be imbalanced tend to tune out.  Therefore it is
> never clear to either the trading teams or the Review Board whether there's
> a widespread consensus that the trade is imbalanced.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Idea for an improvement, addressing the above:
> >>>
> >>> Require teams to post collateral in order to protest.  Lower the
> amount of collateral required per-team as more teams join the protest.  If
> the protest is upheld the protesting team(s) get back their collateral, if
> the trade is upheld they lose the collateral.
> >>>
> >>> example:
> >>> if 1 team protests a deal they must put up a 2nd round pick
> >>> if 2 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 3rd round pick
> >>> if 3 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 4rd round pick
> >>> if 4 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 5rd round pick
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>> If a team does not have the required round pick they can post a pick
> one round earlier in the following draft (e.g. if I don't have MCM#2 2018 I
> can substitute MCM#1 2019)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What does this do?  It puts the burden on the owner with the lowest
> threshold to find other people who are in agreement.  It should also
> establish a significance level for trade protests, as nobody is going to
> want to risk losing picks of higher value than the players/picks actually
> involved in the trade.  Finally, this system encourages consensus and I
> believe the resolution process would be much less painful if both the
> trading teams and the Review Board knew that a large number of people were
> in agreement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure there are other issues with the protest system that could be
> improved, this just jumped out at me as a re-alignment of incentives that
> would be a big improvement.
> >>>
> >>> Sean
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20170505/c4a1417a/attachment-0001.html>